Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
11-02-2012 | 06:42 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
From: DL 7ER F/O
Alpa,
You are conveniently stating that we would only have 9 pax on us from, say, BOI to SEA if we started a 73 or Mad Dog on that route. Would there not be any pax at all that would bail off AS to go on us? I say there would be some, not all, but some and that we could compete with our mainline product very well against AS if we had to. Heck, just turn on the AC when the cabin gets hot alone would bring some of their pax to us.
Have ridden on them LOTS and have been in the back sweating both before and after the flight cuz they do not turn on any air until right before push and it is off shortly after block in.
You are conveniently stating that we would only have 9 pax on us from, say, BOI to SEA if we started a 73 or Mad Dog on that route. Would there not be any pax at all that would bail off AS to go on us? I say there would be some, not all, but some and that we could compete with our mainline product very well against AS if we had to. Heck, just turn on the AC when the cabin gets hot alone would bring some of their pax to us.
Have ridden on them LOTS and have been in the back sweating both before and after the flight cuz they do not turn on any air until right before push and it is off shortly after block in.
11-02-2012 | 06:49 AM
Can't abide NAI
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 12,078
Likes: 15
From: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
I though Alpha's post on target - we're in the middle (or end, hard to tell) of a large recession. ...
But look around - Delta is making lots of money, we just got a decent contract while others are fighting hard for less improvements than we got.
Also, Delta is consistently lowering our debt load - which (a) saves us money in interest every month and (b) allows us to get better rates when it comes time for new(er) airplanes. That helps us pilots in the long term.
But look around - Delta is making lots of money, we just got a decent contract while others are fighting hard for less improvements than we got.
Also, Delta is consistently lowering our debt load - which (a) saves us money in interest every month and (b) allows us to get better rates when it comes time for new(er) airplanes. That helps us pilots in the long term.
As measured by GDP, we were technically out of a recession in June 2009. However, incomes have not grown and unemployment has remained at 8% (which at some points in our history would have seemed fantastic). Many countries has been fighting with unemployment as high as 25% for years and I still can't find anyone to trim the damn bushes on my property. 2% growth is certainly not robust, but it is not a recession (by definition). Mostly likely, we are in the middle of a business cycle.
IMHO, Delta was still culling post merger capacity and when you merge the trend lines of f-NWA's market, we've continued the same pattern almost as though nothing happened.
Shrinking increases costs and decreases market relevance.
As has always been the case in my career ... 12 months from now should be a good deal.
11-02-2012 | 06:58 AM
Can't abide NAI
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 12,078
Likes: 15
From: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Over 10,000 737's
Not bad for what Boeing considered to be an interim jet with limited potential.
Not bad for what Boeing considered to be an interim jet with limited potential.
11-02-2012 | 07:29 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 6,971
Likes: 0
From: Kickin’ Back
Sort of right. ...
As measured by GDP, we were technically out of a recession in June 2009. However, incomes have not grown and unemployment has remained at 8% (which at some points in our history would have seemed fantastic). Many countries has been fighting with unemployment as high as 25% for years and I still can't find anyone to trim the damn bushes on my property. 2% growth is certainly not robust, but it is not a recession (by definition). Mostly likely, we are in the middle of a business cycle.
IMHO, Delta was still culling post merger capacity and when you merge the trend lines of f-NWA's market, we've continued the same pattern almost as though nothing happened.
Shrinking increases costs and decreases market relevance.
As has always been the case in my career ... 12 months from now should be a good deal.
As measured by GDP, we were technically out of a recession in June 2009. However, incomes have not grown and unemployment has remained at 8% (which at some points in our history would have seemed fantastic). Many countries has been fighting with unemployment as high as 25% for years and I still can't find anyone to trim the damn bushes on my property. 2% growth is certainly not robust, but it is not a recession (by definition). Mostly likely, we are in the middle of a business cycle.
IMHO, Delta was still culling post merger capacity and when you merge the trend lines of f-NWA's market, we've continued the same pattern almost as though nothing happened.
Shrinking increases costs and decreases market relevance.
As has always been the case in my career ... 12 months from now should be a good deal.
Denny
11-02-2012 | 07:46 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 6,971
Likes: 0
From: Kickin’ Back
Okay, it seems to me that this part of our scope clause would apply to the Alaska SEA to SLC flights:
3. The DL code will not be placed on AS flight segments to or from a Delta hub.
Exception one: The DL code may be placed on AS flight segments to or from LAX, subject to Section 1 O. 2. Any such flight segments between LAX and an Alaska hub will be included in the calculations in Section 1 O. 3. Exception two.
The rest talks about exceptions on hub to hub flights which these are not because SEA is not a "hub."
The way I read it, it seems pretty clear that Delta cannot place it's code on these flights because SLC is a Delta hub.
Denny
Edit: Now that I think about it, the Alaska SEA to ATL flight(s) are in the same boat. Do we allow our code on these flights????????
3. The DL code will not be placed on AS flight segments to or from a Delta hub.
Exception one: The DL code may be placed on AS flight segments to or from LAX, subject to Section 1 O. 2. Any such flight segments between LAX and an Alaska hub will be included in the calculations in Section 1 O. 3. Exception two.
The rest talks about exceptions on hub to hub flights which these are not because SEA is not a "hub."
The way I read it, it seems pretty clear that Delta cannot place it's code on these flights because SLC is a Delta hub.
Denny
Edit: Now that I think about it, the Alaska SEA to ATL flight(s) are in the same boat. Do we allow our code on these flights????????
Last edited by Denny Crane; 11-02-2012 at 08:12 AM.
11-02-2012 | 08:16 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,831
Likes: 172
From: window seat
Unemployment? Hey let's not count those who've stopped looking.
Wait, what?
GDP? Hey let's count debt based spending as GDP!
Wait, what?
Targeted debt based stimulus and slush fund programs like the so called "auto-bailout" and the massive phony value assault on housing values continue to distort those long term market realities as well.
I know you know all this Bar. I just have to vent every once in a while.
11-02-2012 | 08:43 AM
Banned
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Well before we get into another thrash about Alaska, let's remember one thing. Neither Delta nor Alaska have any control about where each other flies. Our contract does not have any restrictions on where Alaska flies. Can you imagine the outrage at Delta if the Alaska pilots tried to negotiate restrictions on which markets Delta could serve?
What we do have in our contract is restriction on where Delta can place their code. In this case Delta is allowed to place our code on Alaska flights with restrictions. These include:
Go back and read #3 again. If someone tries to tell you that Delta can make money on Alaska coded flights without them traveling on a Delta airplane, they are flat out wrong. Delta cannot just sell tickets on Alaska flights and make money. A pro rate is based on miles flown, if you fly 0 miles your share of the revenue is $0. Every time you think that Delta is outsourcing flying to Alaska, just remember this, 0 miles = $0.
So Alaska can add a flight from SLC to SEA, they can add 100 and Delta has no say about it. If Delta places code on ONE Alaska flight, then there must be FOUR Delta flights with Alaska code. Delta cannot replace SLC-SEA with Alaska flights, Delta has to grow on a four to one ratio.
The average amount of passengers that are in any one market on Alaska flights is 9. Does anyone have any idea on which Delta aircraft would serve a market with 9 passengers? Those 9 passengers on multiple flights collect in Seattle and then we fly them west to Beijing, Narita, etc. We just added another flight (Shanghai) and are trying to add Haneda. Without this code share, the Seattle international operation would crater. Someone should at least point out that the size of the Seattle base has doubled since the merger.
Here is the problem. From 2007-2012, US air traffic has shrunk by over 10%. Yes shrunk, that is not inflation adjusted or any other type of adjustment, that is an actual 10% shrinkage. Slightly before the merger, in July 2008,, Delta and Northwest together had 10,826 pilots in category, i.e. flying the line. In July 2012 we had 10,644. That is a reduction of 1%. If we had a reduction of 10% to match the drop in traffic then that number should have been 9,743.
Delta has also upgauged their own fleet. How may 160 seat MD-90's does it take to replace 5 100 seat DC-9's? 3. So when you add that up, there should have been a larger drop below 9,700. The reason why Delta has not shrunk our pilot force by 10% is that almost all their drop in capacity has come from the regional carriers. We have lost over 200 aircraft and that number is increasing. Delta has increasingly stolen high dollar market share from UAL, AMR, and LCC and also aggressively increased their charter market share which has saved a lot of our jobs. UAL, AMR, and LCC are all much, much smaller than they were in 2008.
So I can understand everyone's dismay at their lack of progression. Global air traffic has declined based on a near doubling of fuel prices and a global recession. That is what has caused the lack of progression and nothing else. Evidence is pretty strong that without this merger, the individual carriers (DAL/NWA) would have been hit much more deeply.
Every single statistic that DALPA has produced has shown that the Alaska code share has benefited Delta pilots more than Alaska pilots. Essentially, everyone's response has been, don't confuse me with facts I have my opinion. Don't blame your lack of progression on Alaska, it is the drop in global traffic.
There are two market in the US that support two airline hubs: Chicago and New York. Seattle is a great city but it is not in the economic or population class as Chicago and New York. There is no possible way to support two hubs in Seattle. So Delta has a choice: they can try to get into a market share war in Seattle and try to drive Alaska out of business, or they can take advantage of their code share to drive passengers into our international markets from Seattle and grow that way. Which event is more likely to occur, and which event is more likely to result in success for Delta pilots' careers? Does anyone really want to get into a hub war with Alaska right now?
So yes, I will tell you unreservedly that the Alaska code share is good for Delta pilots and helps our careers. The facts are clear and unambiguous. If you are looking for a scape goat on why you haven't progressed you can blame it on Bush or Obama or the Chinese or the bankers or the rich or the poor, or whatever target suits you. Blaming it on the Alaska code share is just wrong headed. Get rid of the Alaska code share and high paying Delta international jobs will go away. Period. If you think we will win a hub war in Seattle you are smoking dope.
What we do have in our contract is restriction on where Delta can place their code. In this case Delta is allowed to place our code on Alaska flights with restrictions. These include:
- Limits on the number and/or percentage of seats on any market that can have Delta code
- A 4 to 1 hub to hub ratio, meaning for every 1 flight that Alaska has Delta code on between Seattle and a Delta hub, Delta has to have 4 flights with Alaska code on in the same market
- This is a pro-rate code share. That means that you share the revenue based on how far the passenger traveled on YOUR METAL
Go back and read #3 again. If someone tries to tell you that Delta can make money on Alaska coded flights without them traveling on a Delta airplane, they are flat out wrong. Delta cannot just sell tickets on Alaska flights and make money. A pro rate is based on miles flown, if you fly 0 miles your share of the revenue is $0. Every time you think that Delta is outsourcing flying to Alaska, just remember this, 0 miles = $0.
So Alaska can add a flight from SLC to SEA, they can add 100 and Delta has no say about it. If Delta places code on ONE Alaska flight, then there must be FOUR Delta flights with Alaska code. Delta cannot replace SLC-SEA with Alaska flights, Delta has to grow on a four to one ratio.
The average amount of passengers that are in any one market on Alaska flights is 9. Does anyone have any idea on which Delta aircraft would serve a market with 9 passengers? Those 9 passengers on multiple flights collect in Seattle and then we fly them west to Beijing, Narita, etc. We just added another flight (Shanghai) and are trying to add Haneda. Without this code share, the Seattle international operation would crater. Someone should at least point out that the size of the Seattle base has doubled since the merger.
Here is the problem. From 2007-2012, US air traffic has shrunk by over 10%. Yes shrunk, that is not inflation adjusted or any other type of adjustment, that is an actual 10% shrinkage. Slightly before the merger, in July 2008,, Delta and Northwest together had 10,826 pilots in category, i.e. flying the line. In July 2012 we had 10,644. That is a reduction of 1%. If we had a reduction of 10% to match the drop in traffic then that number should have been 9,743.
Delta has also upgauged their own fleet. How may 160 seat MD-90's does it take to replace 5 100 seat DC-9's? 3. So when you add that up, there should have been a larger drop below 9,700. The reason why Delta has not shrunk our pilot force by 10% is that almost all their drop in capacity has come from the regional carriers. We have lost over 200 aircraft and that number is increasing. Delta has increasingly stolen high dollar market share from UAL, AMR, and LCC and also aggressively increased their charter market share which has saved a lot of our jobs. UAL, AMR, and LCC are all much, much smaller than they were in 2008.
So I can understand everyone's dismay at their lack of progression. Global air traffic has declined based on a near doubling of fuel prices and a global recession. That is what has caused the lack of progression and nothing else. Evidence is pretty strong that without this merger, the individual carriers (DAL/NWA) would have been hit much more deeply.
Every single statistic that DALPA has produced has shown that the Alaska code share has benefited Delta pilots more than Alaska pilots. Essentially, everyone's response has been, don't confuse me with facts I have my opinion. Don't blame your lack of progression on Alaska, it is the drop in global traffic.
There are two market in the US that support two airline hubs: Chicago and New York. Seattle is a great city but it is not in the economic or population class as Chicago and New York. There is no possible way to support two hubs in Seattle. So Delta has a choice: they can try to get into a market share war in Seattle and try to drive Alaska out of business, or they can take advantage of their code share to drive passengers into our international markets from Seattle and grow that way. Which event is more likely to occur, and which event is more likely to result in success for Delta pilots' careers? Does anyone really want to get into a hub war with Alaska right now?
So yes, I will tell you unreservedly that the Alaska code share is good for Delta pilots and helps our careers. The facts are clear and unambiguous. If you are looking for a scape goat on why you haven't progressed you can blame it on Bush or Obama or the Chinese or the bankers or the rich or the poor, or whatever target suits you. Blaming it on the Alaska code share is just wrong headed. Get rid of the Alaska code share and high paying Delta international jobs will go away. Period. If you think we will win a hub war in Seattle you are smoking dope.
11-02-2012 | 08:43 AM
No longer cares
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,109
Likes: 0
From: 767er Captain
11-02-2012 | 08:47 AM
No longer cares
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,109
Likes: 0
From: 767er Captain
11-02-2012 | 08:57 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
From: One with wings
The proverbial camel has gotten it's nose under the tent, and this should raise the collective hairs on the backs of all our necks!!! DHS, by what authority I do not know has granted a temporary waiver of The Jones Act. The act that prevents Maritime Cabitoge between US Ports. The reasoning is altruistic, to provide a temporary increase in tonnage available to transport fuel & oil the the NE. However this could have long lasting unintended consequences if left unchecked/unchallenged. It's only a few degrees of seperation from our cabatage protection. Once foreign carriers/shippers get a taste of the market being withheld from them there will be a full court press to end it permanently.
Btw, what gives DHS the authority to waive an act of Congress? I'm guessing the Patriot Act (that congress rubber stamped without reading)???
Btw, what gives DHS the authority to waive an act of Congress? I'm guessing the Patriot Act (that congress rubber stamped without reading)???
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
